Filed: Jun. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT June 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-41313 Summary Calendar In The Matter Of: CAMELOT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF MCALLEN, LTD. Debtor, COLIN KELLY KAUFMAN, Appellant, versus CAMELOT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF MACALLEN, LTD. Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (M-03-CV-28) Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PE
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT June 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-41313 Summary Calendar In The Matter Of: CAMELOT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF MCALLEN, LTD. Debtor, COLIN KELLY KAUFMAN, Appellant, versus CAMELOT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF MACALLEN, LTD. Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (M-03-CV-28) Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT June 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41313
Summary Calendar
In The Matter Of: CAMELOT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF MCALLEN, LTD.
Debtor,
COLIN KELLY KAUFMAN,
Appellant,
versus
CAMELOT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF MACALLEN, LTD.
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(M-03-CV-28)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On 26 January 1999, Camelot Retirement Community (Camelot)
filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Colin Kelly Kaufman,
formerly an attorney for one of Camelot’s limited partners, filed
an application in bankruptcy court for attorneys’ fees in August
2000. The court denied Kaufman’s application, holding that, as a
terminated attorney, he lacked standing to seek recovery under 11
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
U.S.C. § 503(b). See In re American Preferred Prescription, Inc.,
194 B.R. 721, 723 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 17 April 1996). The court
further concluded that, even if Kaufman did have standing, he
failed to demonstrate a “substantial contribution” to the estate,
and was therefore precluded from recovering fees. See Matter of
D.P. Partners, Ltd. Partnership,
106 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 1997),
cert. denied,
522 U.S. 815 (1998).
After the reorganization plan was confirmed, Kaufman filed a
second fee application, which was again denied by the bankruptcy
court in June 2002. Kaufman appealed unsuccessfully to the
district court and to this court, which affirmed in February 2004
in a short, unpublished opinion.
Kaufman also sued Camelot in June 2002 to revoke the
bankruptcy confirmation order, based on allegations of fraud; he
sought payment of his attorney’s fees. Those allegations were
substantially the same as those made in Kaufman’s other action.
The bankruptcy court dismissed his complaint. On appeal, the
district court affirmed. Essentially for the reasons stated in the
district court opinion, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
2